1/ When a problem reoccurs several times in short time, you have a process problem. If the organization is sizable, it needs an external consultant to channel the already-existing knowledge through decisionmakers to execution.
2/ "but the consultants are expensive"
Consultants provide service that is nigh impossible to keep & foster in-house:
they enable the middle managers to make an about-face without losing face.
Moreover, the *strength* of their influence is proportional to the budget.
3/ The consultants find & extract knowledge and ability to fix that is already present in the organization, and then re-frame it from "a hare-brained and expensive idea" to "everybody does it as the best practice".
4/ It bears emphasizing: consultants perform a cultural, communications and knowledge handling service, to enable the middle manager to do the right thing.
Consulting is primarily a cultural service - helping middle managers with PR, both external and internal.
5/ "High budget = efficacy" and also "highly independent from middle-managers" makes it night impossible to maintain consultant staff in-house. At the very least you'd need to fly in staff from another campus or even continent. Possibly staffers of C-level officers.
6/ Incidentally the government does an older variant of consulting work, if a bit forcibly. In particular the judicial branch, and various regulatory agencies of the executive branch.
This of course is the most expensive consulting service you can get. Except...
7/ ...Except the opinionmaking class (mostly the media) also got in on the consulting action. Their billable hour is cheap - can even be $0 - but they surely extract value from your *reputation & social standing*. Few orgs can survive a hefty bill of reputation & social standing.
8/ Wrapping up: consulting good and productive, in particular for large organizations, where middle managers abound.
That's also one of the reasons the gov & the opinionmakers prefer to deal with large orgs - they can fully exert their power, at the middle management level.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
2/ The first point - a necessary technological development:
at present *propaganda/marketing/PR* is much more cost-effective than engineering, manufacture. This makes propaganda pervasive and highly influential on the society, making people & businesses highly subject to it.
3/ A sub-point regarding propaganda/marketing/PR:
need a cultural trend that treats negative propaganda at significant scale like a social attack, and reacts accordingly. At present pushback to it is strongly disallowed.
2/ Be pseudonymous online. Establish and use a long-running identity that is worth maintaining. Exchange it every couple years. Have side identities for when necessary.
Some of those could well be *shared* with others allied with you. 4chan's "Anonymous" identity comes to mind.
2/ a point to expand upon: one's individual data is probably not that very valuable; it's much more valuable *in aggregate* and *with cross-correlation *. it would probably make much more sense for group ownership of data - think shareholders in a business venture.
3/ another point to expand upon: ability to trade our own data would *also* provide us with a degree of feedback as to how (non-)anonymous does our data make us.
imagine if, for every draft post, you could get an estimate "this de-anonymizes you by 2%" or some such.
1/ The "no politics" rule of polite conversations has proven destructive. Question the "no politics" rule. Question the origin of the "no politics" rule.
2/ "No politics" - for sake of unity - has proven to be head-in-sand. Unity is a compromise negotiated from positions of strength and understanding, not an abrogation of your position. Where there is subversion of the negotiated compromise, there there is no unity.
3/ The left subverted the "no politics" rule of polite conversation by re-defining its political demands ("X rights", "free/costless Y", "equality of Z" etc.) as "common sense", "modern", "humanitarian", and - "non-political".
perhaps that's the point: to put Twitter in position of deeming who is a journalist (corporate media?) and who "isn't" (Andy Ngo?)
Twitter and "private media" poasting ban: they codified a carve-out for "covered by mainstream media". This might be aimed at smaller journalists like Andy Ngo. Or memes.
A lot will hinge on how they will interpret they other marked point, "contains eyewitness account...".
Claire Lehmann and her crew are engaging in very interesting strategy:
staying correct on secondary concerns - and also turning that into supporting the official line of their government's primary concerns du jour.
>corrective information
>we're just protecting the indigenous communities
This is particularly interesting, coming from a portugal politician.
He says flat out" fake news" because the name is not an exact translation according to him - and because the measures enacted are "sensible". Replies lists what was enacted - exactly what you expect.